Why "fun feminism" should be consigned to the rubbish bin

are you going to c&p your way through thread til we submit and all agree

Welcome to the home of extremists who like propaganda.
Favourites here include:
Labelling, Black & White fallacy, Oversimplication, Demonisation, Stereotyping or Associative fallacy, amongst others.

It is the twilight world. One that isn't particularly healthy, especially if you aren't aware of half the crap thats going on.

But Nyac - that's not in the article

eclectic, your first post started with 'I'm new to this section of mn. I find it patronising that it seems some people on this board think that those that don't agree with them just haven't seen the light yet. It's like talking to a born again Christian. Radical feminism has really put me off this board to be honest.'

Did you mean to sound so rude?

Would it have been really difficult to express your disagreement without being rude about radical feminism and 'some people' (which is a rather nasty thing to say as it is clearly intended to offend someone, but because you don't name them, no-one knows who)?

Lots of posters manage to explain they're not radical feminists, and still post here and are valued.

your bossy tone makes me laugh.threads go off at tangents.and lots of c&p can't compel people to stick to your agenda

it's slack to make up lame put downs
competitive feminism,posturing to be most rad. not like the fun fem who are drippy

The main problem with the article for me is the author does not really address what form of feminism she is taking issue with. She refers to "fun feminism" but does not define it. She seems only to be saying that any form of feminism she doesnt agree with is wrong and lumps it together under the term "fun feminism" It is a very poorly written article. Lazy, sloppy and with no clear point

Ok, fair enough, what imparticular is coming accross rude?

I guess it was related to my posts which have directed at Nyac. Unfortunately, it got personal as there was only one poster that I vehemently disagreed with, hence why it was directed at them. So it would be acceptable if I directed my posts at more than one person?

I think probably MN want you to know you maybe need to tone it down?

Why would you report people unless you had a problem with them?

You are coming across a bit rude, if you don't mind me saying. I don't think I've responded to a single post of yours and I've noticed it, so it's obviously not that subtle.

I could say the same has been done to the views I've posted. Why is everyone ignoring the discrimination element. I am truely astounded and confused by the new set of socially acceptable rules on this board, which don't exist in mainstream. I feel like I've stepped into a twilight zone.

Electic, I could counter that, with twisting another's words or taking them out of context and reading into them something which isn't there, is childish. We might not agree, that's fine by me.

I think Julia expressed the difference quite well, some people put individual rights above everything else, neoliberal economics and libertarian social politics dominate the culture under which we live, it influences current thinking. Maybe it is the difference between collectivism and individualism.

Do you know what is truely hilarious. I have been emailed by mn to say that I have been reported frequently on this thread. I haven't reported any posts on this thread, in fact I have only ever reported one post this year, when I was worried for someones welfare.

People are reporting me as they don't like what I'm saying. I don't like what some people are saying either but I don't resort to reporting.

The mind boggles how you can out down a whole section of society and discriminate transgender but I can't challenge a poster who has extremist discrimatory views I don't agree with.

Can anyone explain what exactly I said that was more offensive than the other stuff on this thread?

Hmm, not quite the same, Plenty, as frida recognised a political angle to her personal choice - she didn't claim the two are unconnected. I feel that, when we find ourselves wanting to go "It's not political! It's just personal!", we are hiding something uncomfortable from ourselves. Not that this seems worth remarking in everyday life, but it does matter in a conversation about politics.

I agree plenty - honest, and not an easy thing to say.

Dreadful article - lazy and badly written. I think its the writing of Julie Bindel that needs consigning to the rubbish bin.

Well your viewpoint and thought processes are fascinating and inspiring, EclecticShock.

And add so much insight to this debate.

garlic I don't think it's hypocrisy. It's like fridakahlo said, pages back -

'I like BDSM because it gets me off. But I also see how it reflects the patriartchal framework of society.'

frida, I thought that was a very brave and honest post.

The FAO page is here:

www.fao.org/gender/en/

I'll see if I can find a link. I think we have had a few previous discussions on it when we were talking about Marilyn Waring's work. I think you might have been on those threads, GB.

Please can you expand on that?

What does "disaggregating gender when looking at food shortages." mean, please?

I think it would change the UK's policies on aid. We would get behind the FAO's ideas about disaggregating gender when looking at food shortages.